August 04:
Practicing politics in Massachusetts must be like steering a ship toward a safe harbor while running away from a hurricane. Certainly Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who is being battered by environmentalists, must feel that way.
On July 31, three members of the state Global Warming Solutions Act Implementation Advisory Committee resigned and criticized the administration’s support of a bill that could lead to the construction of a natural gas pipeline across the state.
“These efforts are deeply flawed,” the three members wrote. “They seriously risk undermining the multiple benefits” from closing coal-fired plants.
Back in December, Patrick along with five other New England governors, signed an agreement in which they agreed to boost the region’s natural gas pipeline capacity by 20% in three years. They also agreed to work for at least one major electric transmission line to bring renewable energy from Canada.
In that agreement, Patrick said, “By expanding opportunities for large-scale hydro, wind and other renewable energy sources, we are putting thousands of our residents to work and creating a healthier region for the next generation.”
The agreement also gave the governors a very big escape clause. It said the governors “must respect individual state perspectives, particularly those of host states, as well as the natural resources, environment, and economy of the States, and ensure that the citizens and other stakeholders of our region.”
Patrick didn’t say a single word in that agreement about any plans to build more natural gas pipelines in Massachusetts. Since signing the document, he has said the time has come for a new standards that ensures the use of the cleanest possible energy.
That means, said Patrick, that energy efficiency must have top priority. “It means zero-emission electricity next–solar, wind, and hydro,” he said. “It means lower-emission electricity last–natural gas, an imperfect choice but best of the fossil fuels. And it means high-emissions sources never.”
In July, he told people protesting the Northeast Energy Direct Project in late July he wants to reduce electricity prices that are “energy-efficient and environmentally sensitive.” He suggested large-scale hydro-electric projects is one way, and offshore wind is another way. “And as a bridge to that future, additional natural gas,” he added.
Bringing more natural gas to gas-starved New England has been a major priority for region’s large energy users for years. The region has been clobbered by high electricity prices that has resulted in part from severe constraints on the region’s pipeline capacity.
The US Energy Information Administration in January said day-ahead, on-peak power prices at the Massachusetts Hub went slightly above $200/MWh during a brief cold spell in mid-December 2013 and up to $237.75/MWh during the early January freeze. (They’re currently about $40.)
These prices were mainly driven by corresponding movements in natural gas prices as the demand for natural gas for both power and heating led to full use of natural gas pipelines in the region and a scarcity of supply, the EIA said.
Kinder Morgan Partners has indicated its Northeast Energy Direct (NED) can help the region its energy needs. The project will have capacity scalable from about 800,000 Dt/d to 1.2 Bcf/d, or ultimately up to 2.2 Bcf/d, depending on final customer commitments.
The company plans to begin the pre-filing process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in September 2014. If all the commitments for capacity as well as regulatory approval are received, the project could begin service in November 2018.
The project won’t solve all of New England’s natural gas supply issues, but large users insist it will help a lot. That said, this project likely will continue to be adamantly opposed by NIMBY-ites and ardent environmentalists. But as far as the governor is concerned, it seems likely he will continue to seek a course that minimizes criticism and takes him to a politically safe harbor.
Source: blogs.platts.com/2014/08/04/new-england-natural-gas-pipeline/?
Comments
Post a Comment